Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would require drivers and all passengers to wear seat belts in trucks, SUVs and cars.
After hearing emotional testimony from family members of those killed in crashes, the Senate's public policy committee voted 10-0 to endorse the bill. It now moves to the full Senate, which approved similar legislation last year before it was blocked in a House committee.
The bill requires people in front and back seats to buckle up in all vehicles with seat belts, with exceptions for trucks used on farms. People who cannot wear seat belts for medical reasons are also exempt.
The bill is being dubbed "Megan's Bill" after 24-year-old Megan Minix of Kokomo, who died last year when the pickup truck she was riding in flipped over. She wasn't wearing a seat belt because she felt safer in the truck, her father said, even though she always wore one in her car.
I wonder how different our lives would be if Megan would have had her seat belt on," a tearful Darrell Minix told the committee. "She was my little girl."
A group of high school students from Evansville told senators they also supported the bill. Adrian France said teenagers like herself would start wearing seat belts in trucks and as backseat passengers if Indiana's law was changed.
"We're afraid of getting a ticket, not of dying," France said.
Bill sponsor Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said the bill would likely face opposition as it moves through the legislative process.
"It's not without controversy," he told senators. "You're going to hear from constituents talking about their freedom and liberty."
Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights.
"We're talking about human life and human injury," Wyss said.
Rep. Bob Alderman, R-Fort Wayne, said adults should make their own choices on whether to wear seat belts without interference from lawmakers.
"There's a group of us who still understand personal freedom," Alderman said.
Alderman said if the bill was assigned to the House public policy committee, of which he is chairman, he might give it a hearing but would not guarantee a vote on the proposal.
Rep. Cleo Duncan, a Republican from Greensburg who heads the House's transportation panel, said she was undecided on what she would do with the bill.
"We're going to have to keep an open mind," Duncan said.
Minix said he would return to the Statehouse to testify if the bill gets a hearing in the House. He said his daughter was not standing up for her personal freedoms by not wearing a seat belt - she simply knew she didn't have to wear it.
"She wasn't trying to make a statement," he said. "This could happen to anyone."
Gimme a break, what are you doing that costs all of us taxpayers? Oops, you must live in "Perfect."
Who on earth made you pay $180,000, what could your income be?
"There is no tyranny on Earth that cannot be somehow justified by the words 'Public Safety'."
Thats funny...Every since this seatbelt law went into effect my insurance rates have only gone up...up...up! Should'nt they have gone down at least right after the law was passed? Just like when Clinton started messing with health insurance in the early 90's. All these HMO's sprung up to save costs. Since then the cost of Medical Care has increased about 10 fold. Anyone who puts money or safety ahead of there freedoms...Gets exactly what they deserve. I guess that is the moral of this story.
So I guess you would have been protesting K-rations during WWII. Give me a break.
Fine analysis BUMP!
"We have decreed that our subjects may drive auto-mobiles! Hear the word of the King!"
Even assuming that the "driverless car" problem causes a significant threat to public safety (and that is a big assumption in the absence of data), that is not the rationale behind the law. They were created to protect the safety of the person wearing the belt.
The suspension of civil liberties in Germany after the burning of the Reichstag was authorized by the following:
*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919: If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153
So exactly how do you feel about mayor bloomberg in new york do you think of him as a fine upstanding reaganite republican ?Let me ask you something else would you have protested the japanese internment camps in world war two that were built for public safety that trumped the asians personal libertys ?I would have and my grandfather that lost a leg in world wa r two did and he caught all kinds of hell for it from the sheeple at the time?
Because it's none of your business.
you gotta check out montags responce in post 125 its kinda scary how many "conservatives" will go along with anything the goverement orders them to go along with
Very very sad day when freepers think like this.
Not rino, authoritarian.
What I don't need is some jerk who hit a chuckhole and got bounced out of his seat over-steering his vehicle into my path where his automobile is going to hurt or kill us. Or, worse, has passengers flying around the compartment, and now he can't see where he's going at 75 MPH because his wife's legs block his view.
Now, is there anyone in Indiana who does not know what a chuckhole is?
There's no RINO issue here. Instead, there's a question of Socialist equity ~ that's where you take everybody's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, toss it into the same pot, and come up with an absence of fundamental safety regulations ~ the idea being that if anything bad happens the government will just pay everybody off out of tax dollars.
Hey, I don't want a payoff, I want to live, and I want my kids to live, and I don't want to get hurt.
So, quit your Commie snivling about "oh, my liberty is hurt" when it comes to buckling up a driver and the passengers in a car, truck, SUV or other motor vehicle out using the public right of way.
"Even assuming that the "driverless car" problem causes a significant threat to public safety (and that is a big assumption in the absence of data), that is not the rationale behind the law. They were created to protect the safety of the person wearing the belt."
I don`t have to assume it is a threat because I have witnessed it first hand. The "significance" of the threat can be debated.
And you are right, it is not the rationale behind the law. But since it can be established that non-seat belt use can be a real threat to other drivers in some instances, then maybe it needs to be taken into consideration when debating the seat belt laws.
I see seat belt laws no different than speed limit laws. They in no way deny anyone any right to drive their vehicle on a public road or highway. It does not effect ones right to travel where they wish, or drive the type of vehicle they wish. It is simply the state ( or the people of that state )asking a citizen to act in a proper manner when operating a vehicle on public roads. Securely restraining yourself behind the wheel of your vehicle is simply part of it ( IMO , and probably most people who drive ).
I don`t see this as a nanny state issue either. Too many people get hyper-sensative to "over-reaching government" that they fail to see the common value in responsible conduct.
I will also say, I generally do not believe the federal government should be weighing in on this, it is definitely a state issue and should be kept there.
I fought it at first and than I came to my senses, it lowers insurance rates and may save your life.
Put down the crack pipe and pick up a dictionary.In the bizarro up is down black is white world you live in what color is the sky?Communism is the goverment forcing you at gunpoint to confine yourself in your own private property or risk fines and jail time like has happened in other states.Peope have been charged with crimes if they dont force other people in thier cars to buckle up. Going along with the goverment intrusions on your liberty and property to save money is just flat out whoreish.
Therein lies the problem. You wish to force others to accept your view of "responsible conduct", just like the left wing elitists who want to get us to stop smoking, eating McDonalds, and engaging in any other activity they deem as "responsible".
""Therein lies the problem. You wish to force others to accept your view of "responsible conduct", just like the left wing elitists who want to get us to stop smoking, eating McDonalds, and engaging in any other activity they deem as "responsible"."
Hold on one second. We are talking about seat belt laws, not eating McDonalds or smoking. Your eating habits or personal choice to smoke does not put me in harms way. There is a difference here.
With your argument, we should just abolish speed limit laws since your view of a "responsible" driving speed may be different than mine.
We are talking about driving a car on a "public" road. You cannot just do what you wish on that public road. That is why we have speed limits, drunk driving laws , and other laws reguarding motor vehicle operation.
I may be very well capable of driving my car backwards on a street and in a way that does not jepordize anyones safety, but that doesn`t mean I can do it though. There is a law , and a good law at that, which prevents me from legally driving my vehicle in an "improper" manner.
So lets stick to the subject. You are trying to put me in a group to which I do not belong, or agree with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.